Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000273-000273 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 34571/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Concurring: Both Judges |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority on interpretation of reserve/waiting lists and PSC appeal maintainability |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Three RPSC recruitment cycles (JLO 2019, ASO 2020, JLO 2013-14) produced select and reserve lists. Some selectees did not join or had offers cancelled. No requisition or nunc pro tunc recommendations occurred beyond six months from forwarding original lists. Reserve-list candidates filed writ petitions after list expiry. High Court directed PSC to “pick” or consider those names. Division Bench dismissed PSC appeals for want of State appeal. Supreme Court found all reserve lists expired, PSC aggrieved, set aside High Court orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All public service commissions and appointing authorities in India |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative tribunals adjudicating service-law disputes |
| Overrules | Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court’s decisions in RPSC v. Jain, Saxena & Meena |
| Distinguishes | High Court reliance on Sat Pal and Manoj Manu for counting validity from non-joining date |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents on waiting-list operation (Gujarat Dy. Engrs; Shankarsan Dash; Harish Chandra; Surendra Kumar) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the six-month validity of a reserve list under Rule 24 commences from forwarding of the original select list, not from individual non-joining or cancellation dates.
- Confirms that Public Service Commissions are “persons aggrieved” with locus standi to file intra-court appeals under High Court Rules, even if the State does not appeal.
- Reaffirms that a reserve/waiting list is not an independent recruitment source—appointments must occur within its limited validity and upon genuine requisition.
- Courts cannot perpetuate prior illegal appointments or construction of negative equality to justify retrospective inclusion from expired lists.
- Writ petitions challenging non-recommendation must be filed within the list’s validity—no fresh six-month window arises from cancelled offers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Maintainability of PSC Appeals
- A division bench intra-court appeal under HC ordinances is available to any “person aggrieved” by a single-judge writ order.
- PSC qualifies as aggrieved under person-aggrieved jurisprudence (Dabholkar; Desai) because orders forced it to recommend beyond rule-bound discretion.
-
Nature and Scope of Waiting/Reserve Lists
- Under service jurisprudence, a waiting list is a temporary contingency tool to fill vacancies from the same recruitment cycle (Gujarat Dy. Engrs; Surinder Singh).
- Candidates on select lists have no indefeasible right; wait-listed candidates have even less unless rules confer specific limited windows.
-
Statutory Interpretation of Rule 24
- Rule 24 RPSC Rules allows PSC to forward up to 50% reserve names within six months from forwarding the original list.
- Literal and purposive construction confines that six-month window to the date the select list is forwarded, not reopening upon non-joining.
-
Application to the Three Appeals
- In all three cycles, PSC forwarded original recommendations well before expiry of six months; no valid requisition for fresh forwarding arose within that window.
- Writ petitions filed after expiry of the six-month period, and HC orders directing post-expiry recommendations, were legally impermissible.
-
Conclusion
- Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders; reserve-list candidates had no right to appointment post-expiry; PSC appeals were maintainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Rajasthan Public Service Commission)
- PSC is constitutional body with independent duties; its writ appeals were maintainable despite no State appeal.
- Rule 24 grants discretionary power to forward reserve-list names only within six months of forwarding original list.
- HC single judges erred by counting six months from non-joining dates and ordering PSC to recommend from expired lists.
Respondents (Wait-listed Candidates)
- Reserve list is a contingency mechanism; equity demands six-month window count from vacancy date, not forwarding date.
- Rule 24 requires purposive interpretation to avoid administrative delay frustrating prospects of reserve-list candidates.
- PSC’s later conduct of forwarding names beyond expiry shows de facto validity; denial to some was arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14.
- PSC lacked locus standi, being purely recommendatory; State’s acquiescence waives PSC’s challenge.
Factual Background
RPSC issued advertisements for recruitment of Junior Legal Officer (2019 & 2013-14) and Assistant Statistical Officer (2020). After select lists and reserve lists were prepared and forwarded, certain selectees did not join or had offers cancelled. No requisition for or forwarding of reserve-list candidates occurred within the six-month validity of the reserve lists. Aggrieved wait-listed candidates filed separate writ petitions after expiry, and High Court single judges directed PSC to recommend or consider their names. Division Bench dismissed PSC’s intra-court appeals for lack of force, prompting these Supreme Court appeals.
Statutory Analysis
Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rules, 1981 (and identical Rule 21 of the Agriculture Rules, 1978) states:
“The Commission may, on requisition, recommend the names of … candidates … to the appointing authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded … to the Appointing Authority.”
- “May” grants PSC discretion to prepare reserve lists and forward names.
- Six-month limitation is unqualified and tied to forwarding date of the original list.
- No fresh six-month period arises upon subsequent non-joining or cancellation of appointment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms service-law principles on reserve-list operation
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves conflict with High Court’s broader interpretation of Rule 24